DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

Pages

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Following the publication of the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI) Report and the revelation of the legal opinion from the island's Attorney General that Deputy Andrew Lewis, after being branded a liar by the COI, will NOT face prosecution for perjury (like you and I would) as he was allegedly covered by Parliamentary Privilege when giving evidence to the COI.

Team Voice has interviewed former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM and asked him his thoughts on the COI's findings and recommendations and indeed his thoughts on Deputy Lewis apparently (legal "opinion") being protected by privilege or not as the case may be. Mr. Power's observations (as one would expect) are far ranging/reaching on this and all subjects discussed in the exclusive interview.

Deputy Andrew Lewis.

He tells us that the public were duped into believing Deputy Lewis and all States Members who gave evidence to the COI were doing so under the same circumstances as everybody else giving evidence. Why was he asked to swear an oath before giving evidence? Why didn't the Panel ask him to just be truthful as there was no point in swearing an oath? Victims/Survivors and witnesses (who weren't politicians) gave evidence under the threat of prison for perjury. Andrew Lewis didn't.

There are other opinions on the definition of Parliamentary Privilege that don't sit alongside that of the Jersey Attorney General. Mr. Power, for instance told us:

"It has been suggested to me that there is no known precedent for the use of privilege to escape prosecution for perjury and that the AG is quoting the law out of context in that the overall purpose of the immunity is to allow members to speak openly and honestly without fear of legal reprisals. Not to lie through their back teeth."

The former Chief Police Officer asks what implications this might have further afield (Grenfell Tower Inquiry) and much more. By referring Deputy Lewis's apparent lies to PPC isn't this already going against the COI's recommendations and in particular recommendation 7 (Below)?

Regular readers will be aware that PPC has already looked at the evidence against Andrew Lewis when VFC made a complaint about his apparent lies but PPC did NOT act on my complaint and further denied me a properly constituted (PPC) Hearing where I would have been granted the protection (which I need(ed)) of privilege enjoyed by Deputy Lewis. my complaint to PPC can, and should, be read HERE and HERE.

Recommendation 7 features heavily in this interview which is why we have published it below so readers can make themselves aware of it when considering the action/inactions of the government in the coming weeks/months or even years. It has to be said that it doesn't look like the best of starts after spending £23m on an "independent" judge-led Inquiry which found that one of our politicians lied and our politicians want politicians (PPC) to look into it.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Team Voice can also exclusively reveal that the former Chief Police Officer has lodged a formal criminal complaint against Deputy Lewis with the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst. Mr. Power is asking that the Chief Minister put into place an "independent" criminal investigation into the actions of Deputy Andrew Lewis. At time of publication the Chief Minister had not responded to Mr. Power and we hope to keep readers updated as we are.

Readers are encouraged to watch this interview (below) in its entirety as it is full of thought provoking revelations few might have thought about. One thing readers/viewers can be certain of Mr. Power is not going away any time soon. In fact VFC has been liaising with Mr. Power for not far off a decade now and we have to say we have never seen him as animated, and determined, as he is now. He looks to have the bit between his teeth and so he should. He, and his family, have been badly wronged. This needs to be put right and he is determined for this to happen.

Recommendation 7: The “Jersey Way”

13.41 Throughout the course of the Inquiry, we heard reference to the “Jersey Way” notwithstanding that there did not seem to be any set definition of the term. On some occasions it was used in a positive way, to describe a strong culture of community and voluntary involvement across the island, and this is something we recognise as a strength of the island, from the many contacts we had with voluntary organisations and individuals who give generously of their time to serve the interests of others. On most occasions, however, the “Jersey Way” was used in a pejorative way, to describe a perceived system whereby serious issues are swept under the carpet and people escape being held to account for abuses perpetrated. A Phase 3 witness told us: “we [also] have the impossible situation of the non-separation of powers between the judiciary and political and there is a lot of secrecy, non-transparency and a lack of openness. This brings with it the lack of trust, the fear factor that many have spoken about and contributes greatly to the Jersey Way”.

It is this strongly held perception by many of those who experienced abuse that will continue to undermine any attempts to move the island forward from the matters into which we have inquired. We therefore recommend that open consideration involving the whole community is given to how this negative perception of the “Jersey Way” can be countered on a lasting basis.

13.42 Jersey has a long and proudly held tradition of governance, but that is not to say that steps should not be taken to reflect the modern world in which the island exists. As with many long-established jurisdictions, there can be a resistance to change, which is something that seems to be acknowledged. We are of the opinion that this serious matter cannot be addressed without further consideration being given, in the light of our findings, to recommendations contained in the Clothier and Carswell Reports.

13.43 While these involve constitutional matters, we are firmly of the view that the progress that must be made in relation to future care and safety of children in Jersey will be undermined if they are not dealt with such that all perceptions of there being a negative “Jersey Way” are eradicated once and for all. Achieving this would, in our opinion, provide a very strong visible marker that there was a deep determination in the island to use the conclusion of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry as a platform to ensure that the island’s children and young people will be looked after in a caring and compassionate system that is underpinned by a system of governance in which there is the utmost confidence among all of the island’s citizens.(END.)

195 comments:

"Mr. Power is asking that the Chief Minister put into place an "independent" criminal investigation into the actions of Deputy Andrew Lewis."

It will not happen.PPC can only deal with Lewis's conduct in this instance and we can already second guess what that's going to be.Otherwise like the AG said Lewis has immunity from prosecution as they are covered by parliamentary privilege whether he lies or not. What they should do is remove him from his position on Accounts.

The (conflicted) AG's reading of the law is NOT the only interpretation out there. This needs to be tested in an independent, non-corrupt, and un-politicised court of law.

Graham Power's quote from main posting:

"It has been suggested to me that there is no known precedent for the use of privilege to escape prosecution for perjury and that the AG is quoting the law out of context in that the overall purpose of the immunity is to allow members to speak openly and honestly without fear of legal reprisals. Not to lie through their back teeth."

Having followed all of this very closely I think that Mr Power, our best ever police chief, is almost certainly correct. Andrew Lewis and the Bailhache brothers must resign to try and restore our island's reputation.

READERS PLEASE NOTE If this blog posting stays current for much longer, the number of comments will exceed 200.

When it passes 200, readers will only see those first 200 comments unless they click on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread.

NB. later replies, even to comments earlier in the thread will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that *Load more* link is clicked.

The way for readers to be sure of reading the whole thread without omissions is to click "Load more..." right at the bottom, and then read from the beginning."Load more..." only loads another 50 comments or so, therefore to get the whole thread you may need to keep clicking on "Load more..." until it is no longer displayed.

PPC might still be protecting Lewis (see links in main posting of my complaint against him). They could, agree with Mr. Power and recommend he is criminally investigated by an outside/independent body. Could seek to have him expelled from the States. Could bring a vote of no confidence/censure. Could do any number of things. They could just carry on "The Jersey Way."

I believe PPC is meeting today to discuss the matter. When/if it comes up with a decision is anybody's guess.

If PPC are doing their job, based what is on the public record, then thats the only thing they could recommend - an independent investigation.However , one has to prove things when it comes to Perjury ...intent and motive - can that be achieved ? im not sure as an investigation by an independent police force hasn't been carried out. So in theory im with Mr Power on this one. Standing Orders privileges have no standing if intent and motive can be proven.

Article 34 Immunity from legal proceedingsNo civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of the States –(a) for any words spoken before or written in a report to the States or a committee or panel established under standing orders; or(b) by reason of any other matter or thing brought by the member before or within the States or any such committee or panel by petition, proposition or otherwise.

ARTICLE 7No punishment without law1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence onaccount of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminaloffence under national or international law at the time when itwas committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed thanthe one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence wascommitted.

What a fascinating - and very, very relevant - conversation between Polo and 15:00!

And - surprise, surprise - Article 7 is "bullshit" - when it comes to "The Jersey Way"!

"Retrospectivity" was no problem - simply no problem at all - when it came to this gangster system of the Jersey "law" enforcement apparatus snatching a % of £26 million - and directing it into their own pockets - via "prosecution costs" - then "legal fees" - and "judges fees" - via the totally unregulated and secret Jersey Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund.

The "offence" - for which Raj Bhojwani (see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-13699045 ) was "convicted" and jailed - was not a "criminal offence" - until some months AFTER the transaction in question!

But - since when was Jersey's money-grubbing so-called "prosecution and judicial" system going to let such a trifling fact as retrospectivity stand in the way of siphoning off a few million to spend on themselves, before repatriating the remainder!

I did not hold out any hope for retrospection in this matter. But I thought it worthwhile to pose the question to highlight the answer. And I think this is still the answer in spite of Stuart pointing to other sins committed by the administration.

It does seem that Lewis is protected from a legal point of view.

It would still be of interest to (i) compare this provision with the situation in the UK, and (ii) know who was behind the wider scope of the Jersey law, if this proves to be the case.

Little bits of accumulated evidence over time can build into a strong moral case or at least sow the seeds of doubt.

Others have questioned the timing (after Power's departure), scope (heavy handed raid which took no hostages) and purpose (Stuart and/or Carolyn) of the raid. It was apparently without warrant and totally unnecessary. It also appears to have breached client privilege. And nothing was done about it.

I have consistently queried whether, after Power's departure, Mick Gradwell pursued his interview with Person 737. Nobody has answered me which leads me to suspect that the interview was let drop, at least on the terms under which it was originally envisaged.

All these "little things" give scope for speculation about the significance of Powers suspension and his being held in the deep freezer thereafter.

None of this figured for the Inquiry. As soon as they thought they could rule out a cast iron connection with child abuse the matter was dropped or just not pursued. This was a serious deficiency in their treatment of their brief. Corruption and its toleration is indivisible. Find it in one corner and you can be sure it's in the other three.

Of course, even if Lewis is protected from direct legal consequences of perjury I'm sure the political system's imagination would not be overstretched in finding a way to disown him, if the political will were there.

@ Mr Syvret has referred to a particular exception to the none retrospectivity principle which is based on R v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Pinochet (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119 (the famous General Pinochet case) which is that where a statute provides for a penalty in respect of criminal conduct abroad the conduct alleged again need not have been criminal here (e.g. the UK or Jersey) at the time the alleged crime was committed abroad. This principle relates to the law of extradition and money laundering offences. This has nothing to do with the present situation where the express wording of the 2005 Law is unequivocal. In fairness to the AG, he has to work with what he's got. Mr Syvret must have voted through the States of Jersey Law 2005 containing States Members' immunity when he was a Senator in 2005 (this is not meant as an attack only an observation). Mr Power is wasting his time going down the criminal law avenue.

I'm not sure that Mr. Power is making a criminal complaint exclusively on the alleged lies told by Andrew Lewis to the COI/States Members/public.

There were many people involved with his suspension and their stories do not stand up to scrutiny. There could be any number of offences committed by any number of people besides Deputy Lewis. There's little doubt people wanted rid of Mr. Power the reasons have still not been made clear.

If what that commentor claims to be the case - was the case - then the various Whitehall officials who participated in - enabled - gave succour to - facilitated - and enabled - the Jersey child-abuse cover-up - by "endorsing" - as those Whitehall officials did - the criminally conflicted Jersey "prosecution" system - then those same Whitehall officials would be facing prosecution for conspiracy to pervert justice, misconduct in public office, etc, etc.

Internationally effective UK anti-corruption laws would be - should be - swinging into action.

But - as is plain -the very "utility" of "The Jersey Way" - is that it provides a weird - mystical - foggy - obscure - liminal, quasi-realm - in which the very rule-of-law is not codified - and can just be made-up, on-the-hoof, as suits those gangster elements of the British Establishment who control Jersey through the city of London commune.

The rule-of-law either applies in Jersey - or applies to those in London - who have enabled the Jersey gangster oligarchy.

But - neither - apparently - is the case - insofar as crimes committed by, and covered-up by - the Jersey gangster public administration, with the evidenced assistance of Whitehall?

Don't take the piss. R v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Pinochet (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119 has zero - and I mean ZERO - relevance to the Raj Bhojwani case - which was a text-book - in so many ways THE TEXT-BOOK - Jersey "privateer" example of racketeering and money-seizing.

The extremely wealthy individual - Raj Bhojwani - who was working closely with former Eastern bloc countries vehicle manufactures, who were supplying to Nigeria - and it made "PERFECT" "strategic" sense - JUST PERFECT - to the British state - and its power-elite - to "fit-up" Bhojwani - and seize many multi-millions from him, wreck the Tatra trucks deal, re-direct that trade to Western manufacturers - falsely jail Bhojwani - as they did to me (I know the facts because I spoke to him in prison) - lead Bhojwani down the "garden-path", making him think "his" lawyers were on "his" side - again, just as the Jersey mafia legal oligarchy attempted to do to me - AND - CONVENIENTLY - pay back to the Nigerian people SOME of the multi-millions stolen by Sani Abacha - which were stolen by him - via Jersey's off-shore finance-industry - and which involved the Ogier Group, and the person who went on to become Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff, then Bailiff - Michael Birt.

Who also - then - "conveniently" - became the person who decided to "prosecute" Raj Bhojwani. And then Michael Birt's bosses - Bailiff Philip Bailhache - choosing the "judges" - who "heard" the "prosecution" of Bhojwani.

Look. Let me give you some advice.

If you're going to attempt to defend - the indefensible - in Jersey's make-believe - fake - gangster - racketeering operation, which masquerades as a "prosecution" and "judicial" system - don't mention the Raj Bhojwani case.

Believe me.

It's amongst the last examples of Jersey "law-enforcement" you want to hold up to the world.

Having concluded my comments on the recent release by Andrew Lewis, I now offer the following thoughts:

Among all of the conflicting accounts and confusion a number of things appear to be evident. Nobody appears to dispute that important evidence, in the form of the original record of the suspension meeting was wilfully destroyed.

There is evidence that suspension documents which bore the date 12th November 2008 and which claimed to be in response to information received the previous day, were, shall we say, deficient in authenticity.

There is an apparent conflict between things said in the legally admissible statement made by Andrew Lewis and the things which he is saying now. There might be an explanation for this, although none is immediately apparent.

In these circumstances I believe that there is a compelling case for a full independent investigation with intrusive legal powers, into the actions of Andrew Lewis and others on and around 12th November 2008 and that given the circumstances, a full criminal investigation, by an independent police force, may be appropriate. This is of course a matter for others to decide. Nevertheless, notwithstanding my effective dismissal from the police service, I remain fully committed to support any enquiry, criminal or otherwise, into the events of November 2008.

Mr Power has my full support in lodging this criminal camplaint. It must have been a nightmare for him being forced unjustly from a job he evidently loved. I don't work myself but I can only imagine what a culture shock this (possibly) illegal and certainly unjustified forced retirement must have proven after such a busy career helping keep us safe from all manner of sociopaths and criminals. Mr Power deserves significant compensation.

Leaving aside for the moment whether or not Lewis could be/should be criminally liable, it is the considered decision of the Inquiry, having examined all the available evidence, that Lewis lied both to the Assembly and to the Inquiry.The contention that Lewis has parliamentary privilege would protect him from criminal liability. But – and this is a very big but – (1) Is the Assembly content to permit a Member who has lied to it in such an important matter to continue as if nothing has happened? (2) Is the Assembly content to permit a Member who has apparently committed a serious criminal offence(but is protected by privilege) to continue as if nothing has happened?If the Assembly is to have any credibility whatsoever it must decide that Lewis cannot simply carry on regardless otherwise it is simply demonstrating with absolute clarity that the Old Jersey Way prevails. The Assembly must find a way forward.

Watching the debate about the report I was hugely impressed by one of the speeches made by Deputy Higgins. Highlighting the injustices suffered by politicians who did so much to get things even this far (Stuart, Trevor and Shona) really needed to be done.

It is a key aspect of the Jersey Way that the Inquiry has stated needs to be sorted out. In my opinion to do this will take official UK intervention and the suspension of the Bailiff as a nuetral act while it is done.

“The trick here seems to be that the Inquiry was a Committee established under States' Standing Orders.”

Was it? – Was the Inquiry a Committee really established under “Standing Orders”?

If so, can you (or anyone else) cite the Standing Order that established this Inquiry?

I venture to suggest, a) that the Inquiry was established pursuant to a “proposition”, lodged by then deputy Bob Hill; b) that the very nature of the Inquiry – a one-off event – is incompatible with the concept and purpose of a “standing order”.

The Inquiry was set up under Standing Order 146 - see page 1 of the Proposition which is available on the Inquiry's website which confirms this:http://www.jerseycareinquiry.org/Key%20Documents/P.118-2012.pdf

if politicians were protected from telling lies at the inquiry, then surely those politicians who also give evidence at the inquiry could lie with impunity, there was Sir Phillip Baillhache, Ann Prike, Ian Le Marquand,

If - as the Jersey oligarchy claims - "members of the States of Jersey" - which includes, don't forget, Crown appointed oligarchs such as Solicitor Generals, Attorney Generals, Deputy Bailiffs, and Bailiffs - "were able to lie - with complete impunity - to the CoI" - then - to anyone but fools - the "findings" of the CoI are simply "unsafe".

If centrally involved - active - core - witnesses - were able to swear an oath to tell the truth to the CoI - whilst knowing through States legal advisers they were immune from prosecution for perjury if they lied to the CoI - then - quite simply - no thinking person can regard the evidence and testimony put to the CoI - and thus its "findings" and "conclusions" - as "safe" - as "reliable".

My God - to think - some people criticise me - for being constructively-excluded from the CoI - for declining to sign away my rights to unconditional legal representation. Whilst many of the core Jersey Establishment figures involved in the child-abuse cover-ups - knew they could lie to the CoI - falsely swear an oath to tell the truth - whilst in reality knowing they could lie - with impunity.

I think truthfully we have no more clarity as a result of this Inquiry than we had before. Even calling it an Inquiry is a misnomer as it was not anything like a Royal Commission etc. It was simply a States Committee. The findings do have be treated as shaky in light of the immunities but also in light of there being no proper inquiries procedure under Standing Order 146, no measurable burdens of proof etc.

The lion is not armed correctly to deal with such creature's in their own environment.

What needs to be done is to attack their weak spot while the iron is red hot. It is now time with the States reeling from the COI damming report.

“ It is a test “ Says G.Power, of how The Jersey States bring about a culture change yet so far they have not been able to act positively when an independent inquiry, calls out one of their own an outright liar.

Next get publicity from the internet to tempt the outside to look into Jersey and see the venom the hypocrisy the waste and the meaningless sound bites of the executive and lackey's in Government.

If the Politicians' or Councilors' called before the Grenfell Tower fire inquiry lie under oath, will they be held to account or is this permissible behaviour without reprisal following on from the way Jerseys' Government has recently conducted itself ?

Clever and an excellent point ! Worthy of the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The …………

Ultimately sovereignty resides in Parliament. It may be the Lion has serious friends and sympathisers who turn up appalled at what a self governing Crown Dependency now looks like.

The wealthy Jersey Government failed to protect vulnerable children for decades, but still allow the speaker to sit over Government and then act as head judge. Then use’s a made up data law to carry out a secret trial using confirmed criminals as witnesses. Then say it is legal for a politician to lie to the parliament and the people without recourse. A law the Government passed in 2005 ( Article 34 ) to protect themselves if caught lying.

Known generally as a corrupt banana state. With the Queen’s representative sitting at the top table saying and doing absolutely nothing.

A comment from the previous thread:http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/liars-in-politics-government-you-deserve.html

"OK we get it Lewis lied, but please be careful not to focus all your energy on him. There were and are a lot of players who hope to stay hidden but should be in the spotlight today. How about Ian Le Marquand and the millions he spent on reports and the rubbish he spouted to keep Graham Power suspended. Lewis finally admits he was under pressure.

What pressure certainly not from Graham Power the Victim. On record Frank Walker and Bill Ogley ( who took his own minutes ) were involved. Did the orders come down from even higher ?

Graham Power was called into the AG's office, who had a copy of a private email on his desk regarding a police investigation into alleged land corruption in Grouville. It was being researched by Deputy Carolyn Labey who was responding to parishioners' concerns.

She was Stuart Syvret's partner at the time. She should be questioned further today ?

The excellent police chief was suspended three days after the AG meeting. We are now told that the judiciary advised Lewis not to do anything until after the Met report was completed. The Bailiff cut in on him in the States Assembly telling him not to go there ( when Lewis said he had seen the Met. Report ) but it was to late.

Remember also the removal ( from the suspended police chiefs office safe ) his work contract that in the event of any legal problems would enable him to employ lawyers to fight his case, paid for by the states.

The copy at the states human resource department also went missing. VFC and Rico i.e. team voice are forensic specialists in this case and its crooked goings on. This is from my memory, they no doubt will correct me of I am wrong.

Five months after the Chief of Police had been suspended, Stuart Syvret’s home got raided by the police under instructions from new boss Warcup. Documents and his computer were taken. Unheard of for a sitting politician to have confidential information removed and be raided without notice. Was this to do with land corruption evidence as Mr Warcup never announced an investigation, was it an effort to find out what Syvret and his partner new, and had documented including emails to Graham Power not sent through the states communications centre ?

The point being look at the all the dots in the picture and join them up and then get justice. There is more to this than one unintelligent, cheap door knob of politician called Andrew Lewis who did not act alone. He did not have the backbone or legitimate reason to suspend Graham Power, he was under orders, but from whom and for what real reason ?

p.s.The net was also closing on establishment linchpin and alleged multiple rapist 737?

You are right about the safe and the legal representation that should have been in it.

We painstakingly went through the every aspect of the suspension of Graham Power on my blog. Operation End Game. I disected it with a running timeline right through Operation Blast..

Graham Power is right when he discusses how PPC should be looking at what action to take as the guilty verdict is already in.. PPC are going to look completely bonkers if after 5 minutes they come back with something different. .

I have just picked myself up from rolling on the floor with a mix of laughter and disbelief.When it becomes available, listen to the BBC Radio interview of Frank Walker this morning.I won't spoil it for you but it now transpires it was all down to him that the situation was identified and acted upon and that the reason Graham Power was sacked was Lenny Harpers choice in wine. Historical revisionists are going to have to rewrite the textbooks.

Frank Walker on the radio this morning was quite telling in a number of areas not least that he seems to be hanging Andrew Lewis out to dry still. Secondly the old price of a bottle of wine (prawn cocktail) sketch.

Let us remind ourselves, and in particular the last sentence, of what Mr. Power had to say about this subject back in November 2011:

"If I have not said it enough then I say it again, the most important people in this whole story are the victims of abuse. It is their plight and their memories which need to be the subject of candid and public debate at the highest level. The attempts to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense claims, is a scandal of which all involved should be thoroughly ashamed."

WN172 alleges that he was repeatedly raped by Senator Wilfred Krichefski.

He was on the appointment Panel for Superintendent and Matron at theJersey Home for Boys (JHFB) in 1946.55 He was a visitor to JHFB in 1947, to interview boys leaving school.56 He was a guest speaker at Brig-y-Don (BYD) in November 1973.57 Research was carried out by the SOJP into him in July 2008.58 Information was received from a former SOJP officer, Barrie Stead. Heinitially alleged that he investigated Senator Krichefski in the 1960s and wastold to stop. 59 He later denied making these allegations.60 Evidence was received by the SOJP of a blackmail demand, makingallegations against Senator Krichefski and others.61

I heard Frank Walker on Radio Jersey just before 9am this morning. In his interview he said only 2 things of interest. One being that he claims he did not influence Andrew Lewis only supported him in suspending Graham Power. Secondly that "they" took "all" legal advice. In fact Frank Walker did not pass on to Andrew Lewis crucial legal advice from the AG to await the full Met report before making any decision on suspension. The decision to suspend Graham Power was made on the basis of a letter from David Warcup based only on an interim report. This proves the relationship between the Chief Minister and Andrew Lewis not to that of equals where the Chief Minister is "giving support" to the Minister with the statutory power to invoke suspension. If it were Frank Walker would have shared that legal advice with Andrew Lewis. He did not.

Not forgetting that none of them were entitled to use the Met report, interim or otherwise, for disciplinary purposes, that the Met were furious at its use and that they unequivocally stated, in response to a query from Lenny Harper, that neither Power nor Harper were criticised in the Report.

Here's another question which needs to be thrown out there. Are we being asked to believe that Andrew Lewis was NOT legally advised by his legal advisers, before giving evidence to the COI, that he was protected by privilege? Did the Panel not know about this protection? Surely if his legal advisers were worth their salt one of the first things they would have told him was that he could legally commit perjury? Would he have needed that legal advice? Wouldn't he have already known this?

All that said I believe the AG is misrepresenting the privilege law as mentioned by Mr. Power in the main posting:

"It has been suggested to me that there is no known precedent for the use of privilege to escape prosecution for perjury and that the AG is quoting the law out of context in that the overall purpose of the immunity is to allow members to speak openly and honestly without fear of legal reprisals. Not to lie through their back teeth."

People should not be too surprised about Philip Bailhache attempting to play down the lies of Andrew Lewis identified by the COI.

In giving his own evidence (the bits he could recall) Bailhache also claimed the Police and Sharp Report criticised Jurat John Le Breton of Victoria College abuse scandal infamy had 'got it wrong' in highlighting this man as pathetic, lacking any integrity in also being accused by an abused pupil of bullying him in to silence at the College.

Tellingly Bailhache added that he thought if Jurat le Breton was to give evidence he would tell a very different story. So the question is why didn't Jurat John le Breton give any evidence? Why was he not summoned to do so by the COI?

Even more relevant because Jurat Le Breton with his clear desire to put the Vic College establishment's "good name" before the victims of Andrew Jervis-Dykes was later placed by Bailiff Birt to sit on both Graham Power's Judicial Review and the defamation court case brought by Trevor and Shona Pitman. With Power and the Pitmans fighting for the victims and a wholly different set of priorities and morals to Le Breton this Jurat's placement should never have been allowed to go ahead. To quote Stuart Syvret completely ultra vires in best Jersey way fashion.

Jon Le Breton is another one being allowed by States members who can't have read let alone attend COI statements and sittings to escape under the rader like Mike Pollard and Ogley. How did this happen?

Really good points here about Jurat Le Breton - it's important not to allow the distraction of Lewis to draw the sting from the Inquiry's failure to hear evidence from such crucial witnesses. This Inquiry seems to have finished before it was ready. Is this because Oldham spent too much money too quickly and failed to balance the books? Was it just bad planning?

IT is simply astonishing that the law protects States Members who are found to have lied to a public inquiry. Last week, the Attorney General told the House that the law did not allow criminal action to be taken against a Member because the absolute privilege parliamentarians rightly enjoy to discuss matters of public interest in the Assembly extended to evidence given to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.

As we now know, the inquiry panel found that Deputy Andrew Lewis had twice lied – once to the States and once to the panel – about events concerning the suspension of former police chief Graham Power.

Last week, this newspaper called for Deputy Lewis to stand down. He has not done so, a refusal which leaves a shadow hanging over every Member of the States Assembly and, therefore, in the eyes of many, over the whole Island.

Deputy Lewis is adamant that he did not lie and says he will fight to clear his name when the allegations are examined again by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. But the debate is not now about a personal battle to save one man’s reputation, it is about the standing of Jersey and of its leading democratic institution.

Last week, Deputy Jackie Hilton echoed calls for her fellow St Helier No 3 and 4 Deputy to go, saying that she does not want to be tarred with the same brush. The public interest of Jersey is now best served by Deputy Lewis resigning. He can, of course, work to clear his name and he can see if the voting public has faith in his ability to represent them by standing in a by-election or in next year’s general election.

It is also imperative – and in the public interest – that the law which protects States Members who lie is reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Read more at http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/11/jep-opinion-time-to-limit-the-privilege/#IGWi5ESSq3dxYrYY.99

That is a good point and one I hadn't thought of. My position is/was that he (Andrew Lewis) had made his bed and will have to lie in it. Both Rico and I published a number of Blogs before he gave evidence to the COI almost pleading with him (for his own sake) to do the right thing. Not to have the Albatros hanging round his neck. He did not heed those requests and carried the party line at the COI and has been labelled a liar (by the COI and many others) because of it. His legacy is written. He will go down in the history books as a liar.

The suggestion you make of him calling a press conference and hanging those out to dry that have hung him out is the only saving grace he might get. I would support him in these actions.

Well that's hardly likely to happen in my humble opinion. If indeed Lewis is part of the masonic brigade as I very strongly suspect, then depending upon what favors or dirty work he's done for his brethren he has a stark choice.

1. Carry on pleading innocence, "it was all a simple misunderstanding" on the part of virtually the entire informed, thinking, intelligent, world, and try and salvage his reputation from the train crash that it is, knowing full well that in reality it doesn't really matter too much because he will be protected and rewarded for that sacrifice by his fellow conspirators.

OR

2. Come clean, bare his soul, confess all, and suffer the wrath, and consequences of his actions from his fellow brethren, which would most likely include financially and emotionally ruining him at the very least. Possibly worst depending upon what dirt he has on others.

Now set out like that maybe its not so stark!

If I am right, then it does raise the interesting question of what the hell have the got on him and what dirty work has he done for them previously?

So does anybody know definitively whether he is indeed a mason and also whether the likes of FW and PB are also?

December 2008- In late 2008 Graham Power is contacted by the Chief Ministers Department about gaining access to his secure cabinet which is held in the Chief of Polices office. Graham Power agreed a process whereby a Jersey Advocate representing Graham Power would be given the code in a sealed envelope and would take this to police and be present when the cabinet was opened.

December 22nd 2008 - The Chief Ministers wrote to Graham Power and said that although this arrangement had been put in place Acting Chief David Warcup had objected and the matter put on hold.

January 13th 2009 - Graham Powers representative Constable T. Brain wrote to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand stating that Connetable Simon Crowcroft had agreed to be present when the cabinet was opened as an observer and subject to all appropriate requirements of confidentiality. The latter also pointed out that as part of his office Simon Crowcroft was a police officer and subject to disciplinary procedures.

January 22nd 2009 - Acting Chief of Police David Warcup opens Graham Powers secure cabinet. Also present is Superintendent Wayne Bonne of Wiltshire Police and David Warcups Staff officer Dave Burmingham. Staff Officer Burminghams role was to compile a list of contents in Graham Powers secure safe and office. This act was done without the consent of Graham Power. Graham Power did not hand over the code to the secure cabinet. What was Superintendent Wayne Bonne doing at the "blowing of the doors" of Graham Powers secure cabinet? Looking for evidence?

An audio tape was recovered from Graham Powers secure cabinet. This audio tape was discovered in a sealed envelope. This tape contained conversations between Graham Power, the media, representatives of partner agencies, and a States Member Stuart Syvret

February 13th 2009 - Graham Power has his first Suspension Review Meeting with Home Affairs Minister Ian le Marquand. Senator Le Marquand informs Graham Power and his representative T. Brain that he, as Home Affairs Minister:

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

"There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do

February 18th 2009 - Graham Power attends Royal Court and seeks judicial Review into his suspension. Solicitor General advices an adjournment because the Minister for Home Affairs is conducting a Suspension Review

March 5th 2009 - Graham Power has second suspension meeting with Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand - The Minister decides to keep Graham Power suspended. What readers must take note of here is the exchange between Graham Powers representative Constable T . Brain and Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand about the amount of time Wiltshire is taking. It now appears that Wiltshire wouldn't be completed until June 2009 - remember this when going down the timescale.

Dr. T Brain:No, I did not know that, but that merely re-emphasises my gratitude. Thank you very much. It has been done as swiftly as possible and the only observations to make are that I am grateful that you have done it within a reasonable amount of time. The point that I am going to make now though is in relation to the fact that we have this 2-stage… just over a fortnight between each stage. It is just the general fact that it must be obvious to you that it 4 months since Graham was suspended, all but a week. That is a very long period of time and I just must register my concerns about the length of time that the inquiry is taking because with every day that passes it will be more difficult for Graham to resume his position as Chief Officer through no fault of his own.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:Can I just ask Mr. Pinel if he has any update on timescales? Because the last information I had was that the report was unlikely to be available until May.

Mr. M. Pinel:Yes, the last information I have, Minister, which is very recent, is that Wiltshire are expecting to conclude their investigation by the end of June.

Dr. T. Brain:I am very grateful for Mr. Pinel’s comment. I must say, Minister, that is staggering.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:That is news to me, I have to say.

Dr. T. Brain:It will become obvious in a moment why I find that staggering. That, I think, re-emphasises the point that I have just made. That with every day that passes it will be more difficult, if not impossible, for Graham to resume his position as Chief Officer through absolutely no fault of his own; certainly not the length of time this inquiry is taking. While the longer the delay the greater the disruption to the command of the force, the uncertainties of the staff, and if there is an issue of public confidence that has been created it has been generated entirely by the suspension process. I re-emphasise I am talking about the suspension process here. I am not talking about the facts of the case that may or may not come to a tribunal at some point. If Wiltshire do not anticipate finishing this before June I suspect we will not be hearing it before perhaps Christmas next year, by which tie Graham would have been suspended for over a year. I cannot believe that the States of Jersey wish this to be an outcome of this process. I appreciate from the very helpful disposition that you gave last time and further information I received from Mr. Pinel that you are a corporation sole and that gives you a clear range of obligations and authorities but I do not think it requires you to be bound by a manifestly bad decision made by any predecessor in your office, so I think you have a clear run at being able to make a good decision on the basis of the information that you have before you now.

April 6th 2009 - Stuart Syvret has his home raided by the Police and is arrested for alleged offences under the Data Protection Law. One of the real motives behind the Syvret raid was that they believed he had been leaked information by Graham Power and Lenny Harper. They were looking for their smoking gun - their end game - the well was dry.

April 30th 2009 - Solicitor General writes to the Home Affairs Minister and informs him of general details of Operation Blast . The Home Affairs Minister then writes to Acting Chief of Police David Warcup asking for details concerning Operation Blast

May 11th 2009 - Graham Power makes a revised application for Judicial Review due to his continued suspension on the 5th March 2009

June 2nd 2009 - Acting Chief of Police David Warcup writes to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand and discloses details of some files held down at Police HQ under the code name 'Operation Blast.' These files contain information relating to States Members and former States Members. David Warcup states that he has brought it to the attention of Ian Le Marquand as it may be relevant to the enquiry currently being conducted by Wiltshire Police. He also informs the Minister for Home Affairs that he has had previous discussions with the Solicitor General about these files.

June 11th 2009 - Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand writes to Graham Power regarding Operation Blast and informs him that there is now two more possible areas of complaint against him. He also informs Chief Executive Bill Ogley about the new issues regarding Operation Blast

June 14th 2009 - Graham Power replies to the Home Affairs Ministers letter. In Mr Powers 4,000 word reply he explains to the Minister some of the matters regarding to Operation Blast. This 4,000 word reply was leaked by someone as the media got hold of it and published parts. The leak was not from Mr Power.

June 16th 2009 - Home Affairs Minister brings Operation Blast to the States of Jersey with plenty of fanfare and little else. This turns people and hopefully States Members against Graham Power.

June 24th 2009 - Graham Power writes to the Chief Minister Terry Le Suer and registers a formal complaint against Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand relating to the Ministers Statement to the States on the 16th June 2009. The Minister having made a public statement without first meeting with Mr Power and hence going against the disciplinary code.

July 10th 2009 - David Warcup again writes to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. He now supplies the Home Affairs Minister with a full transcript of the audio recording that was left in Graham Powers secure cabinet for the Home Affairs Ministers information and consideration. He again mentions to the Minister that this might be considered if he decides to widen the TOR's of the Wiltshire Investigation. The Home Affairs Minister is now in possession of audio recordings that were kept in a secure location by the former Chief of Police Graham Power.

Parliamentary privilege in jerseyJuly 22 2009This report from the states Greffe is quite extensive and I get the impression that a states member can say whatever they like without fear of any legal challenge. But I am not a lawyer.. Stuarts case is mentioned as well as several others ... I think I'll reserve my judgement till I hear expert Independant advice but i am not hopeful that Lewis can be bought to book on his lies under oath. Phil

July 31st - 2009 - Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand holds a suspension meeting with Graham Power Graham Poower and T. Brain regarding Operation Blast. Graham Power is suspended again for Operation Blast . The Former Chief of Police has 2 suspensions - the new one being just days before his Judicial Review Hearing. Wiltshire have already missed deadlines concerning the first suspension of Graham Power they are now called in to investigate another suspension.

September 8th 2009 - Graham Power losses his Judicial Review. There is not a chance that he could have won this Judicial Review. If he had, and returned to work, then David Warcup and Ian Le Marquand were finished. Their positions and actions were then, and are now, seeing as the Home Affairs Minister is still in post totally and completely untenable.

Senator Le Marquand now has two suspensions running. This after Wiltshire have already missed deadlines. Is this down to his incompetence

I am writing further to our previous meetings and my previous briefings to the Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis.

The purpose of this letter is to set out details of what I consider to be failings in relation to the command and management of the on going Historic Child Abuse enquiry.

I believe that there is a strong public interest in making the following disclosures and that it is right and proper to do so to maintain the integrity and confidence in the States of Jersey Police, and also to ensure that the public interest is properly served in seeking to resolve these issues...End

Interesting observations from Darius Pearce on Facebook which deserve further discussion. Any thoughts?

The form of the oath of office of Attorney General -

"You swear and promise before God that well and faithfully you will exercise the office of Attorney General under our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in this Her Island of Jersey; that you will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, according to law; that you will uphold and maintain the honour and glory of God; that you will uphold and maintain the laws and usages of this Island; and that you will ensure, so far as you are able, that all transgressors of the law meet their just deserts; all of which you promise on your conscience."So1) that you will uphold and maintain the honour and glory of God2) that you will ensure, so far as you are able, that all transgressors of the law meet their just desertsI think that both of these have been breached by the advice given by the AG to the States of Jersey regarding Andrew Lewis

There is no issue with those, but we must make sure you get those. This is the sensitive area. The sensitive area is that in his letter which you have not seen Mr. Warcup makes reference partly to the Metropolitan Police report of which you are both aware. I have not seen that report, and indeed the previous Minister did not see that report, and the reason for that is because that report contains highly sensitive information regarding individual cases, naming potential offenders, victims, et cetera et cetera. Now my advisors do not want me to see that report because of that sort of sensitive information but I am aware that because reference has been made to it in Mr. Warcups's letter that it not unreasonable that Mr. Power or yourself or some representatives, which in this case might not include lawyers because of the very sensitive area, be able to see the report and to check that in fact that which has been quoted from it has been accurately quoted. This is sensitive because even my own advisors do not want me to see it, I believe for good reasons, because I am not an operational police officer and I am the Home Affairs Minister. What we have been looking at, and this has again been a reason which has slightly delayed the responses in other matters, is mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty of it containing information which frankly is not relevant directly because only the information whichis referred to by Mr. Warcup in his letter is really relevant. So what we have been looking at is different possibilities which are canvassed for you now to try and get around the difficulty. One of the difficulties is to try and persuade the Metropolitan Police to produce a redacted, reduced version of the report which would only effectively make reference to the matters which related to management structures and so on, and not to individual cases. But I am not sure whether they are going to agree to do that because there is a second difficulty which I will be absolutely open with you about, which is this, and it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of JerseyPolice and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose. But let me see if I can ... if it was not referred to in the letters it would not be in play at all. (END)

Excellent stuff you have published, and reproduced here Rico. It seems to get forgotten that the MET interim report was abused. This strained relations between Jersey and the MET as described by Ian Le Marquand:

it is a relationship issue in relation to the States of JerseyPolice and the Metropolitan Police who are not entirely happy that a report was produced for a particular purpose and is now going to be involved for a different purpose.

Ian Le Marquand has been let off lightly so far. His actions/inactions are just as bad, if not worse, than those of Andrew Lewis.

Do people think it is a coincidence that NO outside police force has peer reviewed the Jersey police force since the MET report was abused?

"To begin with there were the written statements made by Andrew Lewis and others to the Wiltshire Police Disciplinary Investigation. These statements contained a legal declaration warning the person making the statement that it could be used as evidence in a Court of Law and if that happened a person who had said anything false in the statement could be prosecuted. Lewis and others signed to say they had been made aware of that possibility.

In his statement to Wiltshire, Lewis said “Up until I received the letter from David WARCUP I had no reason to believe that they were not managing the investigation well.” The statement made by Lewis was supported to varying degrees by the Chief Executive Bill Ogley and other members of the governing group. But according to the information revealed in the Napier report, Lewis and others, who included Ogley and the then Chief Minister Frank Walker, had been secretly meeting and communicating for months to discuss the means by which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police could be removed from office. This is no longer denied by anyone. So the written statement made by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, to an investigation conducted by Wiltshire Police under the provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, gives a false and misleading account of how the Minister came to his decision. It is difficult to see how such a material inaccuracy could have been recorded other than with a clear and calculated intent to deceive readers of the statement, and to conceal from myself, my defence team, the Jersey public and States Members the true circumstances surrounding the unprecedented action taken by Lewis."

The problem with this is that for perjury to take place the Wiltshire statements would have to be tendered in legal proceedings (to make out the actus reus of perjury). Because GP never had a disciplinary hearing on the substance of the issues, the Wiltshire statements do not seem to have been tendered in any legal proceedings. This is of course before you get to proving an intent to deceive beyond all reasonable doubt, which is likely to be a much higher bar than to which the Oldham Review needed to satisfy itself. Graham and Lenny would probably be best focusing efforts on other things as criminal prosecution is a bit of a red herring.

Afraid not, the alleged perjerous statement has to materially affect the outcome of legal proceedings in a court or tribunal. As far as I can see there are no such proceedings. This is why witnesses in proceedings are asked to verify statements etc. as the first thing they do in the witness box. Perjury threats are a bit of a distraction from the core issues really.

In terms of "other things", allow PPC to fulfil its task and decide whether "lied" is fair in all the circumstances. This is the due process per the Standing Orders. In the ultimate analysis this is a matter for Deputy Lewis's constituents and the election isn't that far away now.

There is a process set out in the Standing Orders which has to be followed, it can't be changed just because its Lewis. That would be kangaroo justice wouldn't it? The PPC are exercising their role on behalf of the whole Island but yes ultimately they can do very little. This is really an electoral matter. You can of course campaign in St Helier 3 and 4 in the run up to May 2018 till you're blue in the face.

There is equivalent immunity at Westminster, that is why Tom Watson has been able to use it several times to out the suspects in child abuse investigations and name the beneficiaries of super injunctions. The immunity can cut a number of ways and can be useful to democracy in particular circumstances. It means States Members can speak their minds without worrying about being shut up through legal proceedings. Article 34 of the States of Jersey Law 2005 probably is a necessary provision.

It is indeed a balance. .....But did Tom Watson lie?.....Did Tom Watson do things which could justifiably be seen to be in the public interest?

Direct action too 'can be useful to democracy in particular circumstances'....such as in a situation where children can be abused (over decades) with impunity and where there can be a coup to hijack the policing function and the law has made itself irrelevant.

The actual existence of democracy (or it's partial existence) is partially down to peoples' willingness to take direct action in otherwise immovable injustices.

Wiltshire was not a committee of the States so Lewis's perjury there should stick, and, in any event, was he not then out of the States? I don't remember.

As far as ILM is concerned, the sheer brazeness (thickness?) of the man is unbelievable. He is aware they are using the Met report in a manner which breaches all the rules, but he is clearly afraid to go back near them and wants Power to sort out something with them.

Having read those accounts at the time, I think Brain totally unnerved him. Hopefully he lost a few nights sleep over it. Brain was really excellent but clearly could not believe the shite that was being dished up to him (and Power).

I hope someone somewhere in the international press is reading all this. They could get promoted on the back of it if properly reported.

"To begin with there were the written statements made by Andrew Lewis and others to the Wiltshire Police Disciplinary Investigation. These statements contained a legal declaration warning the person making the statement that it could be used as evidence in a Court of Law and if that happened a person who had said anything false in the statement could be prosecuted. Lewis and others signed to say they had been made aware of that possibility."

I wondered if Lewis had perjured himself in the UK or on something where the UK law would have jurisdiction.

But as you say, I don't think Lewis was a States Member during the Wiltshire Investigation or the Napier review.

Could be that the clink of a cell door is getting closer.

Not just perjury, but perjury to cover up child abuse and other crimes!

The Inquiry has found (rightly or wrongly) that the suspension of Graham Power was not to cover up child abuse. It is unfair to accuse Andrew Lewis of covering up Child Abuse. I don’t think that was his intention. It “might” have been the intention of others but not his.

We should all by now, know why Graham Power was suspended. 1. To stop a case that was being gathered by Power, that, was on course to charge a prominent member of the Jersey establishment with serious adult sexual abuse on more than one victim. 2. As the instigator of Operation Rectangle, the suspension of Power would conveniently lay the investigation open to sabotage, ridicule and cover up, which is exactly what happened. If Power is to help himself and Jersey victims, he needs to by-pass Jersey and take his case to London, bang on the Privy Council's door and sit it out.

Re 737 if that's who we are talking about, see also my comment further up re masonic influence (polite way of saying it) and the choices that Lewis does not have. I still maintain this is the very core of the problem in Jersey.

A Vote of No Confidence could be brought against it or a vote of censure. This should have happened when they ignored my complaint against Deputy Lewis. I don't think the COI has given them any more evidence than I (and others) did. The difference is it (PPC) can ignore the little guy (who it is supposed to be representing) but has to be seen to be doing something when a £23m COI raises the issue.

I'm curious about a matter. I recollect reading somehow on the blogs of the existence of a letter by David Warcup sent to Ian Le Marquand, after the former had seized material from Graham Power's safe. Does that letter appear anywhere in the COI evidence archive, and if so can someone point us to it, as I'd like to refresh my memory.

On my understanding the AG did not say that Lewis did not commit perjury. He said that if he did commit perjury then he could not be prosecuted. It is an important difference. From the various comments above it is emerging that the perjury was not an improvised response to the questions of the Inquiry. It was planned, organised perjury prepared over a long period in collusion with others, who might possibly include the taxpayer funded lawyers who represented Lewis at the Inquiry. If the Jersey Establishment wants to put their name on this then let them get on with it. The world will judge. Already they are making themselves look like a crime syndicate masquerading as a government.

Walker said on radio this morning that he and others did not pressurise Lewis, so is Lewis lying again? if he is not then he should spill the beans and say what really happened before they really shaft him, because believe me they will hang him out to dry, do it Lewis before its too late.

The BBC have to offer the same air time to Graham Power, and to Stuart Syvret, as they gave to Frank Walker in the interview which can be heard at the following link, beginning at 2:35:35

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p056f1d6#play

The BBC will offer Graham Power and Stuart Syvret a right of reply, because they are obliged to do so by their Charter, and the Broadcasting Act. They have no choice. Law compels them.

It was a very interesting interview. It was conducted live, and a few of the obvious and very weak 'token' questions were put to Walker. Predictably, his answers were not challenged. Not in any kind of robust, informed, researched basis. Any self-respecting journalist who'd made themselves reasonably aware of a few key facts would have torn Walker limb-from-limb. They even failed to play the actual clip, recorded in BBC Jersey studios, of Walker saying to Stuart Syvret, once Walker thought the mikes & cameras were off, "you're trying to shaft Jersey internationally!"

All that said, the interview was pitiful. I'd say it was an abject case-study in the toxic folly of ego. Walker got it wrong. He backed the wrong horse. He blew it. A pivotal, once in a life-time judgement-call fell upon him, and he failed. He dissolved into spineless jelly, and started supporting senior civil servants who'd been covering-up child-abuse for decades. Instead of supporting a legally empowered cabinet colleague. His Health & Social Services Minister in the course of a covert investigation he was required and empowered to undertake in accordance with the relevant laws, got surprised by a question he was asked in the Jersey parliament, so he did the only right and ethical thing he could, he gave the question an honest answer. And Frank Walker's response to that? To join-in with civil-service demands that Syvret be removed because he did not lie to your legislature, and give a false answer along the lines of 'everything in the garden is rosy'.

I recommend people listen to the Frank Walker interview. Every thinking person will hear the sophistry at play, the fact-denying attempts at 'justification', the hopeless omissions, the frankly embarrassing ego the sheer ego, of an inadequate man who lives in a dream world in which he has never had to face his weakness, and thinks he can alter reality just by claiming the opposite. But above all, as you listen to the interview, you can hear in his voice, the truth, although he never says the truth. His voice betrays him. You can hear the inadequacy, nervousness, unexpressed cry for rescue, the weakness, his unacknowledged awareness of the the truth, the fear, in his voice.

I have paraphrased or quoted some of the notable content from Frank Walker:

Not true that reputation came before children

blamed Syvret

blamed Harper

Said a lot of HDLG accusations not true[calling other people liars]

banged on about "entertainment and lavish dinners"

stand by suspension of chief of police and would do "exactly the same today"totally agree with Lewis

we were receiving top level advice from our most senior civil servants and law officerssays it was AL's decision

and later that it was a "joint decision"

"The decision was taken on the best advice available"[no it was CONTRARY to the LO advice to wait until the final report, and FW did NOT forward this to AL ..........A joint decision where you keep the other party in the dark makes it FW's decision]

"I would take the same decision today" [no Frank, remember you keep saying it was Andrew's decision]

Any regrets about the decision to suspend? ....The power suspension "is a sideshow""most abject apology he has ever seen from the BBC" for "misrepresenting" him on Newsnight

Said that Syvret is trying to rewrite historyHe was Health minster "while ALL this child abuse was going on"[no only a tiny bit of it -and the difference is that he ACTED ON IT]

"Never at any point did Stuart Syvret raise concerns at that time"[rehearsed stock phrase concocted to mislead]

No the investigation has not tarnished my political career

Said they acted on the "Williamson Inquiry" [NO THEY FAILED TO IMPLEMENT EVEN a Cr@p Ourchap report]

Said it was ME who called for a Public Inquiry [NO IT WAS SYVRET]

claimed that Williamson was a "thorough investigation which we acted upon" and he would "defy anyone" to have known that Williamson Report was not adequate [N.B. Syvret said it was cra@p at the time]

----------------------

£24,000,000 is only about half of the icebergeven more taxpayer's money has been syphoned off for things like shystering an "abject apology" out of the BBC for the Newsnight piece, which can be viewed here:

I was well aware of the radio and tv appearances and beyond Paxman doing his usual posturing, I fail to see what the BBC could have apologised for. Is there anywhere the BBC apology can be consulted? Walker is making great use of it.

1.The BBC was being hit with some very expensive lawyers (being paid by the taxpayer) to find even the minutest cracks in the BBC's live broadcast.

2.This is the BBC we are talking out. The home and protectors of Jimmy Savile.It is quite possible that the order to "apologise" came from on high.I have always been at a loss as to what they were required to apologise for. Any errors they made appear to be in Walker's favour.

The bbc finding on Frank Walker's complaint can be found on the following link: http://www.bbc.com/corporate2/bbctrust/our_work/complaints_and_appeals/editorial_2008Click on the December pdf, and scroll down.

If Walker did indeed claim that it was an abject apology, he is basically lying. Read it for yourself. They upheld some of his complaint, and did not uphold some. They specifically refused his demand for an on-air apology, and clearly felt that the areas they did uphold were quite insignificant.Graham Power might note with irony where Walker complains that it took a month for the bbc to respond to his complaint. How long was his suspension strung out?

I broadly agree with you Polo except the exact quote is "you are trying to shaft Jersey internationally". He's not accusing him of doing it, but "trying" to do it. subtle difference. Anyway Paxman made a mess of it and misquoted, but I absolutely agree the errors are not of any real significance and in no way is this a most "abject" apology.

As for the rest of Frank Walkers lies they are clearly set out in comment at 10:06 starting "Yes nauseating". These are the many of the things that a good journalist would have picked up on and torn FW apart. The problem is that radio journalists and largely the rest of them as well are to lazy to research properly.

Am I correct in recalling that Lewis was appointed as Home Affairs Minister, suspended Graham Power, and stood down, all within the space of a few weeks? If I am correct, it would rather suggest that he was a political assassin brought in by Walker to do the dirty, and then disappear.

Frank Walker was Deputy for St. Helier No. 3&4 for many years before becoming a Senator. Even in the Senatorial elections FW always come top or did very well in St. Helier No. 3&4 when individual district votes were counted. Even after FW left politics he would have enjoyed a certain level of support in that district- the district which Andrew Lewis now represents. Why did Andrew Lewis choose this seat over any other when he remains a resident of St. John?

One assumes it is the same Andrew Lewis. There could, potentially, be another Andrew Lewis who is a member of lodge number 1003.

Andrew Lewis does not declare such membership in his declaration of interests on the States Assembly website. Some members do, some don't. It's apparently up to them whether they do. Terry McDonald, for example, does declare it.

Did he rejoin the freemasons or did he move lodge? I don't know how this works but is it possible to switch lodges, or dip in and dip out of them whilst still being a mason? Can you be a member of more than one lodge at a time?

Re is this the right AL, then possibly yes. There are two other A Lewis's listed in the phone book, along side Andrew who uses his full name.

So does anybody else know, and can prove categorically, if any of the following are/were also Jersey Masons:-Frank WalkerBill OgleyPhilip BailhacheIan Le Marquand

Report on contact w/ Barrie Stead: officer in SOJP during 1960s who began investigatingallegations that Senator Krichefski and the head of Channel TV were making blue films atHDLG involving residents. States he was told to stop the investigation.

Lucy Stephenson is in a senior position at the JEP sometimes acting as editor. Is it just me that thinks the Royal “ we “ in her article is a subliminal effort to dilute blame from the elite in Government and states departments on to the wider population ?

Close to what was offered in the online comment section, early this morning and refused publication by 1.00pm. Interesting, has a nerve ( or ego ) been touched.

COMMENT: 'I’m angry. I’m upset. I’m ashamed'Lucy Stephenson

Dear JEP

Bill Ogley, Mike Pollard and Deputy Anne Pryke, the ex health minister carried out no checks to verify improvements were initiated and she did not support having a commissioner for children.

Terry Le Suer ex chief minister, said no to funding, no inquiry supported by Philip Bailhache and other high ranking politicians who make decisions for Jersey and it’s adults young and old in the States,.

Clearly the general population has no say in running the Government. If they did, the states would not be gambling on speculative office block development nor agree to pay twice for everyday waste removal or employing child abusers and lying politicians.

The ordinary working residents are not using 32,500 flights a year or playing golf travelling to far flung places on tax payer funded jollies.

This being fact, Lucy Stephenson is clearly wrong in her assumption in writing that:

“ And it is a state of affairs that all adults, young and old, have to take responsibility for because it is no longer good enough to say that it happened on someone else’s watch, or even that it was nothing to do with us personally”.

A more useful article would be why was ex Chief Executive of health and social “ children’s “ services Mike Pollard, who wrote the letter to staff saying, children’s service's professional's had never got it so right, was not on the list of managers questioned by the care enquiry, ( or anyone else ) but is on a big pension and received a £130,000 handshake to go.

It is government and it's administration that needs be accountable and shoulder the blame and responsibility for child abuse over decades not the general population.

lUCY STEPHENSON IS AN APPALLING JOURALIST. How can this dimbo hack say everyone is to blame when we all know people, politicians, like Syvret, Trevor and Shona Pitman, Monty Tadier, Bob Hill, Mike Higgins and Dan Wimberley all fought the establishment and their silent poodles tooth and nail for justice over many years?

Does she really think bloggers like Rico and Neil are to blame the same as she and her useless, cowardly msm colleagues? Does she think Harper and Power are to blame like all the top coppers who went before them?

As to waffle about understanding the spectacularly uncaring and useless Deputy Tracey Vallois this really made me want to throw up my breakfast Cheerios. Vallois has said and done nothing on a par with the past and present States Members I named above. Her hand-wringing now is stomach churning.

You should have stayed a little Assistant Minister Deputy Vallois it about your level of intelligence and morality. As for Lucy Stephenson stick to writing about food and shopping.

Hmmm....Of course I understand the perspective behind the two comments above, concerning the article by Lucy Stephenson. And both raise what are correct criticisms of the limited nature - the omissiveness - of Ms. Stephenson's views.

But that does not mean the core point she makes is wrong.

Yes. We are all a party to what our authorities do, or fail to do.

Let me put it this way, when I did the recent interview with the JEP, what I thought was one of the most important things I said, they didn't include. Which was the following:-

"Perhaps the deepest impact upon me of the Jersey child-abuse cover-up - all that rabid obstruction - & populists oppression, contempt, hate - and the attendant mobilisation of public-opinion on the side of state-empowered suppression - gave me a deep, dark, profound - shockingly clear - insight into how the Shoa - the Holocaust - was able to happen."

And it wasn't able to happen without the complacency, contempt, disdain, idle bigotry and de facto consent - the involvement of - the broad population.

And the same applies - deeply - darkly - to the population of Jersey - and its crazed, corrupted, abusive, child-abuse concealing state-apparatus.

So whilst the two comments are right, to point out Ms Stephenson's failure to acknowledge the role of power - of the apparatus of the state - that doesn't make her wrong about our collective, communal failure.

Stuart, likewise I understand your perspective, but simply cannot agree with your analysis. Until a few years ago, the ONLY media in Jersey were the Channel Television, BBC Jersey, and - especially - the JEP.

Only a very small proportion of islanders had any knowledge of the child abuse taking place in States-run homes, and only those relatively few islanders who crossed swords with the establishment ever really understood the depths of corruption and criminality in the higher reaches of Jersey society.

For most people growing up here, certainly of my generation, Jersey seemed actually a rather idyllic place. It's not that we turned a blind eye to what was happening: we simply had no idea.

The reason we had no idea is because the media, and especially the JEP, colluded in the omerta. It consistently hid the truth, and ruthlessly garbaged any whistleblower or anti-establishment figure. I hardly need to tell you this.

Without a plurality of media, generations of islanders grew up thinking the JEP's sanitised version of reality was the truth. This is a newspaper that could without irony report that Tourism were delighted by the increase in foreign visitors in June 1940, and that it was all down to their marketing strategy. OK, that might not quite be true, but it captures the sense of how the JEP has simply acted as a credulous, uncritical mouthpiece for government liars.

I agree with the original commenter, who objected to the attempt by a JEP columnist to try to spread the blame. There IS no collective blame here. The blame lies with a relatively small number of abusers and the cohort of government functionaries and their propagandists and aplogists.

1. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Following the publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s report, will the Chief Minister be sending an official apology to the former Chief Police Officer, Mr. Graham Power, for the treatment Mr. Power received at the hands of the Council of Ministers and, if not, why not?”

Credit also to Tracey Vallois. Mandatory Reporting is a recommendation made by VFC to the COI and will be the subject of an up-coming Blog Post.

10. The Deputy of St. John will ask the following question of the Minister for Health and Social Services –

“Could the Minister advise what practices are currently in place for mandatory reporting (by professionals) of abuse of both children and adults? If none, what consideration is the Minister giving to mandatory reporting and what extra resources does he estimate would be required?”

19. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chairman of the States Employment Board –

“What confidence can the Chairman of the States Employment Board give abuse survivors and their families that those who failed in their public duty to ensure children or vulnerable adults in the care of the States were not sexually or physically abused will be held to account? Could he explain the procedure in place for such action resulting from the report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (R.59/2017)? Will action extend to those no longer in the employ of the States but who are named in the report as presiding over unsatisfactory regimes?”

Three very good and relevant questions to be asked and I applaud all of them.

I too am also of the opinion that mandatory reporting should be part and parcel of any reforms to be made in the wake of the Inquiry Report findings. It is an essential requirement which I have always felt should be put in place.

Anyone know when ppc are meeting and in the interest of open and transparent government will they be making an immediate statement of their findings ... in the public interest ... as they should ... in order to try and regain the trust of the electorate which has been so damaged by the finding that deputy Lewis has lied to the states assembly and also whilst under oath to the COI

"The St Helier Deputy is currently being investigated by the Privileges and Procedures Committee."

"INVESTIGATED??" The investigation has been completed. It cost £23m and was conducted by and "independent" Panel. Now all of a sudden PPC is "investigating" it? What a laughing stock this island remains.

Deputy Andrew Lewis is to TEMPORARILY stand down as chairman of Jersey’s Public Accounts Committee while an investigation is carried out over claims he lied to the States and Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.

Andrew Goebbels said he will now temporarily stand down while he works to clear his name.He said: ‘My actions in 2008 were based upon evidence presented to me by officers and advisers.‘I acted with integrity and impartiality [you recently said you did it under pressure], with the full support of the then Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers remaining within the remit of the disciplinary code and the rule of law.‘My actions of the day were justified, and in the best interests of good governance and the people of the Island.‘Most importantly, the victims of child abuse have always been at the forefront of my mind [like when?] and I do not wish allegations related to the competence of a former police chief to detract from the real issue, the failings identified in our child care services.[Sorry, I think I'm going to puke!]

Well I agree VFC, but I guess that as long as they come up with the right decision, and I imagine its going to be very hard to anything other than agree with the COI on this, then I can suffer a short delay whilst they go through what they think is the right procedure. Any lengthy delay will not send the right messages or inspire confidence.

Noted as well that you gave them chance to investigate this previously and they did nothing. PPC credibility is also on the line, including young Mezac's

@VFC"INVESTIGATED??" The investigation has been completed. It cost £23m and was conducted by and "independent" Panel. Now all of a sudden PPC is "investigating" it? What a laughing stock this island remains.

Who knows VFC. Perhaps PPC will be a bit more curious than the £23m CoI was about WHY Andrew Lewis lied to justify the suspension of Jersey's Chief of Police in the middle of the biggest ever investigation into state sponsored child abuse

Investigated? This has to be some joke surely. What ARE PPC about? The man has been 'investigated' time and time again, not only by local bloggers who had him bang to rights, but by a thoroughly honourable QC, her panel and her counsel. Please, please PPC do not let the Jersey Way rear its head so very soon after a damning Report which not only showed this Island in a very bad light, but Andrew Lewis as well. Who is left to 'investigate' him now? Please can it be someone who is totally Independant of this Island as it seems that nothing can get stand in the way of the powers that be unless they are from off Island. Beggars belief.

VFC, to facilitate your readers’ understanding & discussion of the Andrew Lewis issue, I think the following paragraph will be helpful. I don’t intend to comment further on it, other than to say it is from a document I drafted in January 2014, and would have been amongst my testimony to the CoI had I not been constructively-excluded.

Stuart Syvret

“3: - The illegal suspension of the Police Chief had the effect of massively damaging public confidence in the extensive child-abuse investigations being undertaken by the Jersey Police at that time, thus damaging the ability of the Police to receive further complaints from victims, survivors, whistle-blowers and witnesses, many of who had been contemplating coming forward, but now saw little point. This witness knows for a fact that there were then (2008) and remain today very many people - very possibly running into hundreds - who have made no disclosure to any person of the child-absue they suffered. (It is fair to say the majority of these non-disclosed cases occur in the community - usually in the family setting.) The reasons so many choose to remain silent are complex and varied. That subject is considered in detail elsewhere in the documentation. This witness is aware of some such cases through disclosures made to him by victims of specific attackers. Further, there are many survivors who felt the need to simply disburden themselves to one other human being, without wanting to endure the torture of the criminal-complaint process and all the attendant trauma. This witness - because of his high public-profile, the political battle he was fighting against child-absue, and his respected public-standing - drew many, many such approaches. Amongst this cohort of victims, of silent & reluctant witnesses, it is sometimes possible, by listening, believing, empathising, showing care & earning trust, to persuade victims to seek help, professional support, to speak with the Police, to become witnesses. But it is often a very difficult and harrowing process. This witness persuaded many such silent abuse-survivors to go to the authorities. This witness was heavily involved in a significant number of such silent “contacts”, most of which were at differing stages of progress, on the date of 12th November 2008. Based on the experience this witness had gained during similar encounters over the preceding two years, he is confident that 75% - 80% these contact-cases were going to conclude successfully, that is, by the child-abuse victim seeking support / speaking with Police. Without exception, all of these damaged, frightened, vulnerable people were terrified and shaken by the illegal suspension of the Police Chief on 12th November 2008. Consequently there was a 100% failure in all of the silent-survivor contact-cases (around 20 human beings with serious needs) this witnesses was working with at that time. These people were frightened, had their deeply fragile nascent confidence shattered, and were driven back into silence, need and darkness - expressly & directly by the event of the illegal suspension of the Police Chief. This witness has no doubt whatsoever that the outcome of stemming a possibly continuing flood of abuse-victims and witnesses was one of the deliberate, calculated intentions of the Jersey establishment.”

If I recall events correctly, the illegal suspension of the chief of police was the surprise attack of the coup.The pre-planned campaign included, a few days later, "that press conference" by Gradwell (the leak) &Warcup?Where they trashed the child abuse investigation and even announced that there were no cellars at HDLG !!!!

The message was quite clear. The abusers were back in control and would be protected

A comparable amount of money went into trashing the child abuse investigation and the good police (largely on the basis of cost, BDO etc) as child abuse investigation cost in the first place.

Now we get a £24m half baked CoI which excludes as much inconvenient information and witnesses as possible.

That press conference must be unprecedented in British legal history. Two senior serving police officers publically undermining an active criminal investigation. Why was this not perverting the course of justice?

Well, as it seems to have been my task for a decade, I must say, "Don't despair, folks."

We're on our way.

The "public-inquiry" was the "last-chance-saloon" for the Jersey mafia & their protectors in London. This was their final chance for bullets to be bitten, facts-to-be-faced, the world to be shown that this polity understood - and was capable of - subjecting itself to the rule-of-law, and coming to the protection of, and shielding its most vulnerable - all that - and metaphorically speaking - placing the culpable heads on spikes.

The-last-chance-saloon: - this was it.

The moment "reality and facts" came 'a calling - and the real villains had to "get-out-of-Dodge".

The Last Chance - to contain this melt-down in the very rule-of-law and its consequences - to within the borders of Jersey.

Predictably enough - hell, we always knew we were dealing with a "product", in the Jersey mafia, that was for generations the opposite of Darwinian fitness.

The Jersey mafia gambled, when taking that monstrously foul and fatal step of crossing a Rubicon - and stepping on a path of folly - when illegally suspending the Police Chief - seemed the "miracle-cure" to all the unanswerable fates swirling about them.

Stuart,I'm genuinely glad you feel optimistic. Sadly, I'm not in any way positive. To me the COI was always just part of a choreographed damage-limitation exercise. There has been, and will continue to be for a short time, cries of mock outrage and faux shock from our politards, and sincere words about the need for change, lessons learned blah blah blah.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Jersey establishment needs to do nothing except wait this one out. When you own all the levers of power, when the judiciary, executive, legislature and fourth estate are one and the same animal, there's simply no need to act.

Sure, there will be some cosmetic changes, some window-dressing, so that the chief minister can claim to have acted. There will be a children's commissioner, and predictably, they will be a "safe pair of hands" in the Emma Martins mould; some minor bit-part functionaries might be made scape-goats; and so on. Meanwhile, the fundamental underlying flaw in Jersey - the lack of accountability and the rule by lawyers rather than the rule of law - will continue.

The one body which could force change - the British government / crown - has known the facts for decades, but clearly prefers the status quo. Jersey's stability as an offshore tax haven is clearly of greater import than the proper administration of the island, and justice for its citizens.

The simple fact of life in Jersey is that most people just want to live a quiet and relatively prosperous life, and aren't engaged in any political struggle.

We understand the anger and frustration of readers but do not and can not condone ANY vandalism of public or personal property. There are more peaceful, and legal, ways of protesting. Please stay within the law. The (above) comment was published in order to demonstrate the level of anger that is out there but ask readers NOT to adopt the suggested actions.

I wonder if it's the same anonymous internet hero who keeps making reference to public acts of vandalism (red paint, yellow paint, whatever)? All I can say is that I hope anybody perpetrating such acts is caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The idea that people would "notice the stain on other people's children if there was even the slightest stain on their BMW" is utterly nonsensical dross. All they would notice is that their car had been vandalised, and if they connected it with any cause, would immediately feel hostile to that cause.

Public lynchings? Yeah, brilliant idea. We should burn a few witches too. Let's go to the zoo and hang a few monkeys while we are at it.

anonymous internet hero @14:00All I can say is that I hope anybody perpetrating such acts as child battery, rape, torture with lighted cigarettes, electricity, stinging nettles, cold water, asphyxiation etc. etc. is caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

but it could be a long wait

in fact it has already been a long wait

but don't worry there is no cover up and children are now safe

We are all concerned with the welfare of BMW's. If I recall correctly one of the first suggestions was the bulk use of whitewash in honour of the shortcomings of a £23m CoI into child abuse (sorry, into "care") Whitewash is relatively easy to clean off buildings and roads and would literally rinse or wipe off a precious BMW.

Even in the event of escalation to the use of paint the risk to BMWs would be relatively minor as few people would be stupid enough to drive through a "red paint, yellow paint, whatever" puddle.

Town would be closed for the day and most BMWs would stay tucked safely up in bed, so don't worry your pretty head.

Would there be any irony in "whitewash protesters" being hit harder than child abusers?I can see the island being "shafted internationally".

I think we are in a situation where we need to give consideration to all ideas.We would be most interested in anonymous BMW hero's campaigning suggestions.

Sure... since you have decided that it's ok to break whatever laws you think fit to make your point, why stop at paint? Why not necklace a random police officer, or take a machete into the states building and hack a few states members to death? After all, the law doesn't apply to you, does it, so why something as tame as tagging a beemer?

Here is my campaigning suggestion: do whatever you want to do, without breaking the law.

A previous poster asked for the video of a certain politician admitting to making things up in a court of law. This request may have been on a previous thread which is no longer visited as much as this current one. Hence the post here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj2h_I-paLQ

I can confirm that Mr. Power sent his complaint to the Chief Minister on the 5th of July and has NOT received so much as an acknowledgement of his complaint let alone a reply. This, in itself, is "The Jersey Way" in action. One would have hoped the Chief Minister would have been acting swiftly and decisively but to not even acknowledge receipt of the complaint is a very poor show and gives little confidence that anything has changed despite the COI (damming) report.

Nobody should be praising or even quoting our lousy Jersey media. Remember what that Scrutiny report in to Operation Rectangle revealed? If you don't check it out and see the real Jersey way at its worst feeding the public crap about Lenny Harper and Graham Power. You can probably find a link on here if you search back to about 2011.

READERS PLEASE NOTE If this blog posting stays current for much longer, the number of comments will exceed 200.

When it passes 200, readers will only see those first 200 comments unless they click on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread.

NB. later replies, even to comments earlier in the thread will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that *Load more* link is clicked.

The way for readers to be sure of reading the whole thread without omissions is to click "Load more..." right at the bottom, and then read from the beginning."Load more..." only loads another 50 comments or so, therefore to get the whole thread you may need to keep clicking on "Load more..." until it is no longer displayed.

Disappointing that it seems one cannot challenge Stuart Syvret's assertion that he was constructively excluded from the inquiry earlier in this thread. His opinion is an arguable one but so is the opposing view. The denial of certain views is something one would expect to see only in the mainstream media.

@10:12 People have challenged Stuart Syvret's assertions for more than a decade now:

Jersey Children's Services are fit for purposeJersey's children have been safe for decadesThe managers are competent and his criticisms are bullyingThe Williamson review is not a crock of shitJersey's children are safe nowChild abuse has not been covered up.................

So in short it is probably best if one challenges Stuart Syvret's assertions anonymously to avoid looking a total ***** in the future

Talking of total *****s -Why would it be so important to you to "challenge Stuart Syvret's assertion that he was constructively excluded from the inquiry"......when a fit for purpose inquiry would have subpoenaed him to obtain the crucial evidence and experience that a HEALTH MINISTER must have.

A subpoena would I believe have resulted in unconditional legal representation which is all he asked for in the first place.

When will the AG be announcing the lifting of both the 'gagging order' against Stuart preventing him from speaking out against historic child abuse in Jersey and the bankruptcy threat hanging over him?

Furthermore as Stuart has now been vindicated will those who were responsible for the above 'actions' be 'dealt with' accordingly?